A New Mexico defense attorney has been fined $5,000 and held in contempt by the state’s Supreme Court after submitting an appeal brief containing fabricated police testimony and invented witnesses allegedly generated by ChatGPT. The case has raised fresh concerns about the risks of relying on artificial intelligence for legal research and court filings without verifying the information.
New Mexico Supreme Court Takes Action Against Defense Lawyer
The attorney, Stephen Aarons, was representing Oscar Renee Sandoval in an appeal of his murder conviction when the disputed legal document was submitted.
According to the court, the brief contained false statements attributed to witnesses who did not exist. The fabricated material included police testimony and other details that were not supported by the original trial record.
The New Mexico Supreme Court criticized Aarons for failing to check the accuracy of the AI-generated content before presenting it in court. The justices also questioned his level of accountability and concern for his client.
As part of its ruling, the court held the lawyer in contempt and imposed a $5,000 fine.
Lawyer Says He Used ChatGPT to Summarize Trial Proceedings
Aarons acknowledged that he had used ChatGPT while working on the murder appeal. He said he wanted the artificial intelligence tool to produce a comprehensive summary of the trial proceedings.
The lawyer reportedly described his aim as creating a “bulletproof summary.” However, the AI-generated material included fictional witness statements and inaccurate information.
Aarons said he was unaware of ChatGPT’s tendency to produce false information, a problem commonly known as AI hallucination. He expressed regret over the incident and described it as a learning experience for legal professionals using artificial intelligence.
The court, however, questioned his explanation, pointing to the widely publicized risks associated with unverified AI-generated content.
Murder Appeal Reassigned as Legal AI Concerns Grow
Following the controversy, the appeal was reassigned to public defender Kim Chavez Cook. Both Cook and the local district attorney’s office declined to comment on the matter.
Aarons may also face further scrutiny from an attorney disciplinary board.
The incident adds to a growing number of cases in which lawyers have faced criticism or sanctions for submitting inaccurate AI-generated material in legal proceedings. Courts have increasingly emphasized that attorneys remain responsible for checking every factual claim, legal citation and piece of evidence included in their filings.
The case highlights a major challenge for the legal profession: while AI tools can help summarize complex documents and assist with research, fabricated information can create serious consequences when it enters a courtroom.
